From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 17:54:44 -0500
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:54:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:05:05 +0800
>>
>> > After batched used ring updating was introduced in commit e2b3b35eb989
>> > ("vhost_net: batch used ring update in rx"). We tend to batch heads in
>> > vq->heads for more than one packet. But the quota passed to
>> > get_rx_bufs() was not correctly limited, which can result a OOB write
>> > in vq->heads.
>> >
>> > headcount = get_rx_bufs(vq, vq->heads + nvq->done_idx,
>> > vhost_len, &in, vq_log, &log,
>> > likely(mergeable) ? UIO_MAXIOV : 1);
>> >
>> > UIO_MAXIOV was still used which is wrong since we could have batched
>> > used in vq->heads, this will cause OOB if the next buffer needs more
>> > than 960 (1024 (UIO_MAXIOV) - 64 (VHOST_NET_BATCH)) heads after we've
>> > batched 64 (VHOST_NET_BATCH) heads:
>> ...
>> > Fixing this by allocating UIO_MAXIOV + VHOST_NET_BATCH iovs for
>> > vhost-net. This is done through set the limitation through
>> > vhost_dev_init(), then set_owner can allocate the number of iov in a
>> > per device manner.
>> >
>> > This fixes CVE-2018-16880.
>> >
>> > Fixes: e2b3b35eb989 ("vhost_net: batch used ring update in rx")
>> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks!
>
> Wow it seems we are down to hours round time post to queue.
> It would be hard to keep up that rate generally.
> However, I am guessing this was already in downstreams, and it's a CVE,
> so I guess it's a no brainer and review wasn't really necessary - was
> that the idea? Just checking.
Yeah the CVE pushed my hand a little bit, and I knew I was going to send Linus
a pull request today because David Watson needs some TLS changes in net-next.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
